[10thAmendmentGuy]

I think some of the confusion stemmed from this statement of mine:

It is also true that states could not afford to wage a real war on drugs if they didn’t have the help of the Feds in waging it.

When I made this statement, I was assuming that the fed gov had ended its War on Drugs, but was still performing the remainder of its unconstitutional functions. If that was the case, then the states indeed could not afford to wage WODs at the state level. Obviously if the fed gov gets out of every unconstitutional endeavor in which it is currently involved, states will have more than enough revenue to fight drug wars (if they choose to). Hope that helps to clarify it.

[tacticalogic]

JUST in case this didn't address your points, what is your basic premise? You haven't really made that clear. If it's that states will have the money to spend on drug wars because the federal government will be substantially reduced in size, I agree. If it's the fact that states will still have the power to wage drugs wars if they want to, I agree.

Both of those.

And while we agree on some points, I tell you now, without malice, that if you come to me with statements like this:

"It is also true that states could not afford to wage a real war on drugs if they didn’t have the help of the Feds in waging it."

you should be prepared to back them up with facts and well reasoned arguments. If you are not prepared to defend that statement as objectively defensible truth, do not present it to me as such.

[tacticalogic]

When I made this statement, I was assuming that the fed gov had ended its War on Drugs, but was still performing the remainder of its unconstitutional functions.

Why are you making that assumption? If that's all you're after, and you haven't thought it through any farther than that, then it's all about what YOU want, and I'd expect that once you got it you wouldn't be sticking around to help clean up the rest of the mess. That kind of help, I don't need.